Back
Allahbad High Court
P.N.BAKSHI
Imamuddin - Appellant
Versus
The Board of Revenue, U. P. Allahabad - Respondent
Decided On : 12/09/1976
LIMITATION - CONSOLIDATION OF HOLDINGS ACT, 1953 - S. 52 - U. P. ZAMINDARI ABOLITION AND LAND REFORMS ACT, 1950 - S. 229-B - SUIT FOR DECLARATION OF BHUMIDHARI RIGHTS - PERIOD OF LIMITATION - COMMENCEMENT - DENOTIFICATION OF VILLAGE UNDER S. 52 OF THE CONSOLIDATION OF HOLDINGS ACT.
Fact of the Case:
Smt. Champa Devi filed a suit under S.202 of the Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act against the petitioner. That suit was decreed. Consolidation operations started thereafter. Objections were filed by Imam Uddin claiming to be Sirdar of the disputed land. Smt. Champa Devi claimed to be the Bhumidhar of the said land. On 16-8-1960 the Consolidation Officer rejected the objection of Imam Uddin. On 1-10-1960, appeal filed by Imam Uddin was dismissed by the Settlement Officer (Consolidation). Thereafter, on 29-12-1960 the Deputy Director dismissed the second appeal filed by Imam Uddin. A revision was again filed before the Joint Director (C) by Imam Uddin which was dismissed on 29-5-1962. It appears that after the decision of the Joint Director dated 29-5-1962 the village was denotified under S.52 of the Consolidation of the Holdings Act. On 20-5-1970 Smt. Champa Devi again filed a suit under S.229-B of the Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act for the declaration that she was the Bhumidhar of the land in suit. In the alternative a prayer was made for possession. This suit was contested by Imam Uddin who claimed to have become Bhumidhar by virtue of his long standing possession for the last 30 or 40 years. A plea was also taken that the suit was barred by limitation.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the suit filed by Smt. Champa Devi was barred by limitation. The period of limitation for filing the suit commenced from the date of denotification of the village in question, which was in the year 1962. The suit was filed on 23-5-1970, which was beyond the six years period of limitation provided for filing a suit of the nature filed by the plaintiff.
Issues: Whether the suit filed by Smt. Champa Devi was barred by limitation.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that S.52 of the Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953, which provides for the denotification of a village, does not impose an absolute fetter on the rights of a person to file a suit for declaration after the close of consolidation operations. The section only provides that any order passed by a court of competent jurisdiction in cases of writs filed under the provisions of the Constitution of India, or in cases or proceedings pending under the Act on the date of issue of the notification under sub-s. (1) shall be given effect to by the consolidation authorities. The court further held that the period of limitation for filing a suit of the nature filed by the plaintiff would commence from the date of denotification of the village in question, which was in the year 1962. The suit was filed on 23-5-1970, which was beyond the six years period of limitation provided for filing a suit of the nature filed by the plaintiff.
Final Decision: The court allowed the writ petition and quashed the impugned judgments and orders passed by the Assistant Collector, Additional Commissioner, and the Board of Revenue.
2. I have heard counsel for the parties and have also perused the impugned orders. The sole question which has been argued before me by the petitioners counsel is that the suit of the plaintiff is barred by limitation. The view taken by the revenue courts is that the period of limitation for the filing of the suit in question would accrue from the date of decision of the writ petition by the High Court that is on 18-9-1967. They have repelled the contention of the petitioner that the period of limitation would commence from the date of denotification that is from the year 1962. From a perusal of the pleadings of the parties as they emerge on a consideration of the impugned orders (the original pleadings not having been filed before this court by any of the parties) it appears that the plaintiff has alleged that in spite of the decision of the Consolidation Courts in her favour, the defendant in collusion with the patwari has got the incorrect entries made in the revenue papers and was asserting his title over the land in suit. A relief for declaration was sought in this suit and in the alternative a prayer for possession was also made. On the face of it, the suit having been instituted on 23-5-1970 there can be no doubt that the case of the plaintiff pertained to the period of time after denotification of the village in question. S.52 of the Consolidation of Holdings Act runs as follows:-
"(1) As soon as may be after fresh maps and records have been prepared under sub-s. (2) of S.27, the State Government shall issue a notification in the official Gazette that the consolidation operations have been closed in the unit and the village or villages forming part of the unit shall then cease to be under consolidation operations.
(2) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-s (1) any order passed by a court of competent jurisdiction in cases of writs filed under the provisions of the Constitution of India, or in cases or proceedings pending under this Act on the date of issue of the notification under sub-s. (1) shall be given effect to by such authorities as may be prescribed and the consolidation operations shall, for that purpose be deemed to have not been closed."
3. A perusal of this section indicates that on the issue of a notification under S.52 of the Act the consolidation operations pertaini
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
